Keep in mind that Multi-classing is an optional rule, you don't have to let your players do it. In my games I tell my players they can't multi-class until level 6 and they must have a narrative justification. It's really hard to justify a Sorcerer dip, you can't train to be a Sorcerer.
I'm not trying to make Sorcerers "better" I'm trying to make more variations of playstyles. The Draconics will be really good choices for people that want to mix it up on the front line, but they are going to have to spend points in Dexterity to make it viable. If a Sorcerer gains access to Heavy Armor somehow they are going to have to spend points into Strength to wear it. I can't imagine this is to be worse than the Paladin/Warlock.
I would forward the idea that Sorcerer is the easiest class to justify multi-classing into. Literature is rife with characters suddenly coming into their powers unexpectedly.
Warlock. No inherent specialness required, just make a deal with a shady eldritch power in a dark alley. Surely nothing bad can happen with that.
Keep in mind that Multi-classing is an optional rule, you don't have to let your players do it. In my games I tell my players they can't multi-class until level 6 and they must have a narrative justification. It's really hard to justify a Sorcerer dip, you can't train to be a Sorcerer.
I'm not trying to make Sorcerers "better" I'm trying to make more variations of playstyles. The Draconics will be really good choices for people that want to mix it up on the front line, but they are going to have to spend points in Dexterity to make it viable. If a Sorcerer gains access to Heavy Armor somehow they are going to have to spend points into Strength to wear it. I can't imagine this is to be worse than the Paladin/Warlock.
I would forward the idea that Sorcerer is the easiest class to justify multi-classing into. Literature is rife with characters suddenly coming into their powers unexpectedly.
Warlock. No inherent specialness required, just make a deal with a shady eldritch power in a dark alley. Surely nothing bad can happen with that.
Now you've got me picturing a Celestial Warlock as an off-the-books deniable asset.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think Warlocks are Cha based because they had to convince their patron to make the deal that literally defines the class. Maybe Int could be the secondary stat, but Cha must remain the primary stat for Warlock.
The main issue with warlocks is that they exist in media as a cautionary tale. There is no warlock in movies, songs, or books that doesn't pay a heavy price for their gifts. Keeping this in mind, those who traditionally pursue warlock pacts do so out of desperation or great determination - best reflected in D&D as Charisma's tie to willpower/force of personality.
This is lost a bit in D&D because there is no downside to warlock powers. Without a real sense of risk, it becomes less clear why a high Charisma would be needed. But it's there as an attempt to tie D&D warlocks to the classic characters and stories that warlocks come from.
Also, it’s just how the demarcation of flavors of power shakes out- Clerics and Druids are tied to the more typical image of forming a spiritual connection for their power, thus WIS; Wizards are the ones whose theme is gaining power by being knowledgeable and studious- yes, I know it’s in vogue to argue your Warlock is special and studied and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and the patron(s) just happened to be discussion partners a time or two, but that’s not the main archetype/theme of the class, as demonstrated by their defining choice being who/what their patron is- thus INT; this leaves CHA as the catchall mental stat for casters who are meant to exist outside the paradigms of the original two big archetypes of D&D. Yes, it’s something of a sacred cow at this point- welcome to product identity.
I think the conversation is less about whether WoTC will do anything about it and more whether you should allow it in your own games.
I came into this conversation with the opinion that you should, but I've been convinced otherwise by this thread. I still *want* sorcerers to be con casters, because on the surface that makes more sense to me, but unfortunately the way the game balance shakes out doesn't allow that to work in a way that's fair for everyone.
Interesting idea. //SNIP!// this would do would be to break the unholy cancer tumor of Charisma Multiclassing, where half the gorram classes in the game all compound in ways that make everyone else kinda hate Charisma casters.
Count me as one of the people that hate the plethora of CHA based casters. Bards are fine, but adding Warlocks and Bards into the mix as well makes CHA equal to DEX as a power stat and that is undesirable in a game design.
I think a lot of the problem is the multiclassing though I do think warlocks should be int, as when you read the class it screams int. That being said the multi classing stuff is more important because things like pact of the blade is so easy to dip to. But for example if pact of the blade created a weapon you used with a magic action in a spell attack it would not multi great with extra attack chr classes, now you'd have to take warlock to 5 to get a 2nd attack. If eldritch blast was not a cantrip but instead was a modifier you applied to cantrips at levels 5,11,17 changing base cantrips into multi attack cantrips people would not dip for eldritch blast. Change the dip abilities in ways that do not make them attractive to dip for. If warlock was int based it would have the same issue with artificers and bladesingers unless you change how the dip abilities worked.
Interesting idea. //SNIP!// this would do would be to break the unholy cancer tumor of Charisma Multiclassing, where half the gorram classes in the game all compound in ways that make everyone else kinda hate Charisma casters.
Count me as one of the people that hate the plethora of CHA based casters. Bards are fine, but adding Warlocks and Bards into the mix as well makes CHA equal to DEX as a power stat and that is undesirable in a game design.
I think a lot of the problem is the multiclassing though I do think warlocks should be int, as when you read the class it screams int. That being said the multi classing stuff is more important because things like pact of the blade is so easy to dip to. But for example if pact of the blade created a weapon you used with a magic action in a spell attack it would not multi great with extra attack chr classes, now you'd have to take warlock to 5 to get a 2nd attack. If eldritch blast was not a cantrip but instead was a modifier you applied to cantrips at levels 5,11,17 changing base cantrips into multi attack cantrips people would not dip for eldritch blast. Change the dip abilities in ways that do not make them attractive to dip for. If warlock was int based it would have the same issue with artificers and bladesingers unless you change how the dip abilities worked.
Oh yes, being handed power screams INT just because you might have spent some time looking up someone’s contact info.
Interesting idea. //SNIP!// this would do would be to break the unholy cancer tumor of Charisma Multiclassing, where half the gorram classes in the game all compound in ways that make everyone else kinda hate Charisma casters.
Count me as one of the people that hate the plethora of CHA based casters. Bards are fine, but adding Warlocks and Bards into the mix as well makes CHA equal to DEX as a power stat and that is undesirable in a game design.
I think a lot of the problem is the multiclassing though I do think warlocks should be int, as when you read the class it screams int. That being said the multi classing stuff is more important because things like pact of the blade is so easy to dip to. But for example if pact of the blade created a weapon you used with a magic action in a spell attack it would not multi great with extra attack chr classes, now you'd have to take warlock to 5 to get a 2nd attack. If eldritch blast was not a cantrip but instead was a modifier you applied to cantrips at levels 5,11,17 changing base cantrips into multi attack cantrips people would not dip for eldritch blast. Change the dip abilities in ways that do not make them attractive to dip for. If warlock was int based it would have the same issue with artificers and bladesingers unless you change how the dip abilities worked.
Oh yes, being handed power screams INT just because you might have spent some time looking up someone’s contact info.
I don't think its worth arguing it again, so whatever think whatever you want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Warlock. No inherent specialness required, just make a deal with a shady eldritch power in a dark alley. Surely nothing bad can happen with that.
Now you've got me picturing a Celestial Warlock as an off-the-books deniable asset.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think Warlocks are Cha based because they had to convince their patron to make the deal that literally defines the class. Maybe Int could be the secondary stat, but Cha must remain the primary stat for Warlock.
The main issue with warlocks is that they exist in media as a cautionary tale. There is no warlock in movies, songs, or books that doesn't pay a heavy price for their gifts. Keeping this in mind, those who traditionally pursue warlock pacts do so out of desperation or great determination - best reflected in D&D as Charisma's tie to willpower/force of personality.
This is lost a bit in D&D because there is no downside to warlock powers. Without a real sense of risk, it becomes less clear why a high Charisma would be needed. But it's there as an attempt to tie D&D warlocks to the classic characters and stories that warlocks come from.
(sorry not exactly on topic)
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Also, it’s just how the demarcation of flavors of power shakes out- Clerics and Druids are tied to the more typical image of forming a spiritual connection for their power, thus WIS; Wizards are the ones whose theme is gaining power by being knowledgeable and studious- yes, I know it’s in vogue to argue your Warlock is special and studied and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and the patron(s) just happened to be discussion partners a time or two, but that’s not the main archetype/theme of the class, as demonstrated by their defining choice being who/what their patron is- thus INT; this leaves CHA as the catchall mental stat for casters who are meant to exist outside the paradigms of the original two big archetypes of D&D. Yes, it’s something of a sacred cow at this point- welcome to product identity.
I think the conversation is less about whether WoTC will do anything about it and more whether you should allow it in your own games.
I came into this conversation with the opinion that you should, but I've been convinced otherwise by this thread. I still *want* sorcerers to be con casters, because on the surface that makes more sense to me, but unfortunately the way the game balance shakes out doesn't allow that to work in a way that's fair for everyone.
My thought make it str instead cha. Reason you are saying your body is the magic it shows physical manifestations of that.
Strength tends to be the caster dump stat. This would make them distinct without any mental stat focus.
Dragonborn lore has changed a lot however dragonborn and kobalds were inclined to sorcerer because of the draconic heritage
The strength caster. AKA punching reality so hard that magic happens.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Add in blatant parodies of a certain "boy wizard goes to wizarding school" franchise and you've got yourself an anime!
Given how good con is I think you'd have to curb its other abilities a little to balance it out but yeah I think it fits better.
I think a lot of the problem is the multiclassing though I do think warlocks should be int, as when you read the class it screams int. That being said the multi classing stuff is more important because things like pact of the blade is so easy to dip to. But for example if pact of the blade created a weapon you used with a magic action in a spell attack it would not multi great with extra attack chr classes, now you'd have to take warlock to 5 to get a 2nd attack. If eldritch blast was not a cantrip but instead was a modifier you applied to cantrips at levels 5,11,17 changing base cantrips into multi attack cantrips people would not dip for eldritch blast. Change the dip abilities in ways that do not make them attractive to dip for. If warlock was int based it would have the same issue with artificers and bladesingers unless you change how the dip abilities worked.
honestly it makes just as much sense as the changes to charisma over the editions to justify it as a casting stat.
Oh yes, being handed power screams INT just because you might have spent some time looking up someone’s contact info.
I don't think its worth arguing it again, so whatever think whatever you want.